Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Holocaust

2007-12-24T20:32:14Z

CillaHunt: /* Reverts */ Andy is adamant that it is true.

The "Criticism" section could be a major black eye if it's not carefully watched. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Reverts ==

You can revert back to the biased version if you insist, but you could at least have kept the correct spelling of "occurrence". [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Why were some of the following Conservative facts [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&curid=3340&diff=357620&oldid=357619 removed]? Surely no one is of the opinion they are not true?

::Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves because the Nazis first disarmed their victims through use of [[gun control]] they were left defenseless. "Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=357551&oldid=357545].

:[[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 14:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)
::It was reverted because you're inserting today's subject of gun control into a period of time and place where that wasn't an issue. It's also speculation; it is fine for the talk and debate pages, but not for the main article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::Andy is adamant that it is true, and certainly not speculation. Surely you're not saying he got it wrong? [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 15:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Evidence ==
I think (from a pedantic view of English grammar) that there is a small contradiction between the wording that the number of those killed is an estimate because incomplete records have been recovered and the fact the holocaust denial is unjustified because the Germans kept accurate records. Perhaps someone could reword this. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 16:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total Dead ==

I've changed the upward value for loss of life from 12 million to 14 million, the value provided by the Encyclopedia of Military History. I thought I better state this in case someone gets upset, as this whole subject can have a tendency to be more touchy than most. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:We need to decide if we are going to apply the term "Holocaust" to non-Jewish vicitms. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Traditionally it has been that way. It's only over time that the non-Jewish dead started to be, for lack of a better word, forgotten. I would say keep it to include everyone who died under Hitler for no reason other than their inconveniance to him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This may need some research on what various respected historians on the Holocaust have said. Simply because it's so-called "common usage" is no reason for us to repeat. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Expanding the article==
As you can see, I've begun expanding it today, and will be done by tomorrow. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:02, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Very nice. But why does it only mention Gypsies, Jehovas witness and homosexuals? More Slavs were victims than all these groups combined.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::It isn't done yet, but it should list the groups of people who were targeted for slavery as well as those targeted for extermination. But as a rule, ''holocaust'' as a term should be restricted to the persecution of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::No argument there.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad my suggested article improvement drive is working! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Yer welcome! Now for the rest of the articles on the list... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dawidowicz==
Here is the citation moved from the Adolf Hilter page. This link is from the [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] and reads,
{{Cquote|Postwar historians of the Holocaust, especially those asserting the exclusivist view that the Holocaust was a historical experience unique to the Jewish people, have taken a similar position. Thus [[Lucy S. Dawidowicz]], a leading exclusivist, has dismissed as '''not worthy of mention''' the '''"prostitutes, homosexuals, perverts, and common criminals"''' incarcerated by the Nazi.2 }}

with the footnote

{{Cquote|Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians (Cambridge, MA, 1981), p. 8. Ironically, this stance echoes the alibi voiced in crypto-Nazi writings of the postwar period that the inmates of the concentration camps were mainly black marketeers and other criminals who later posed as innocent victims of the regime; for example, Brigitte Pohl, Fastnacht der Damonen: Erlebnisse einer Wienerin (Leoni am Stamberger See, 1963), p. 45 [published by the Druffel-Verlag]. Pohl is a frequent contributor to the farright monthly Nation Europa, published in Coburg. }}

http://web.archive.org/web/20010121143900/http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual7/chap12.html

Dawidowicz is the Author of ''A Holocaust Reader'', and ''The War Against the Jews'', two definitive works we certainly will be citing in this article. Dawidowicz's credentials are impecable. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Use that as a reference, and add material as appropriate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

So far I have touched the beginnings of World War II. As it stands, what I have put in is merely an article in general terms; detail can be added as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:41, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
The structure is pretty basic, but ready for new material. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bombing the railroad ==

Many historians have debated the question of why the Allies did not attempt to stop the operations at Auschwitz by bombing the railroad into the camp - or whether they could or should have. Is that relevant to this article? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it is. Perhaps a new subsection called "Allied responses" or something similar, in which it is described what the Allies did, could have done, or didn't do during the war. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Your edit of the word Nurnberg is fine, however it's spelled. What I wanted to do is to get as close as possible to the German spelling, but the mark above the letter "U" in the word is a bit of a trouble to insert. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Found the German version of the word, with the inflection. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==This is an excellent article==

This is a very well done and researched article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone has posted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 12:01, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I see once again someone has pasted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 21:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand; I don't see a photograph there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

It's 12:35 PM on August 31, 2007. Take a look again at the statistics box. It's partially blocked by a photograph.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 12:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Two changes I would like to offer==
I'd like to second the comment by DanH on the quality of this article. Well done, editors!

That said, I'd like to make two comments:

1) Purpose of article
The article begins with "The Holocaust is a word...". This suggests that the article is one discussing the word itself, rather than the event related to the victims of Nazi Germany, which is actually the main thing being discussed.

A decision seems necessary on whether the article discusses the word (under which the definition and etymology is important) or the historical event. I think the more likely reason people visit this page is the later.

I believe the etymology should be moved to its own section farther down in the article. I also think there should be a deliberate reference to the [[Genocide]] article, rather than just having a category.

2) Displaced gravity of the article
The end of the definition contains the following language: "when Jews were ... and ultimately targeted for extermination". My problem is only with the use of the word "targeted", which suggests that extermination may not have actually occurred. The actual subject should be front and center, and not left as an item to be discussed in the body of the article.

[[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:43, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Holocaust

2007-12-24T19:48:46Z

CillaHunt: /* Reverts */ Removal of Conservative facts?

The "Criticism" section could be a major black eye if it's not carefully watched. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Reverts ==

You can revert back to the biased version if you insist, but you could at least have kept the correct spelling of "occurrence". [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Why were some of the following Conservative facts [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&curid=3340&diff=357620&oldid=357619 removed]? Surely no one is of the opinion they are not true?

::Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves because the Nazis first disarmed their victims through use of [[gun control]] they were left defenseless. "Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=357551&oldid=357545].

:[[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 14:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Evidence ==
I think (from a pedantic view of English grammar) that there is a small contradiction between the wording that the number of those killed is an estimate because incomplete records have been recovered and the fact the holocaust denial is unjustified because the Germans kept accurate records. Perhaps someone could reword this. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 16:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total Dead ==

I've changed the upward value for loss of life from 12 million to 14 million, the value provided by the Encyclopedia of Military History. I thought I better state this in case someone gets upset, as this whole subject can have a tendency to be more touchy than most. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:We need to decide if we are going to apply the term "Holocaust" to non-Jewish vicitms. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Traditionally it has been that way. It's only over time that the non-Jewish dead started to be, for lack of a better word, forgotten. I would say keep it to include everyone who died under Hitler for no reason other than their inconveniance to him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This may need some research on what various respected historians on the Holocaust have said. Simply because it's so-called "common usage" is no reason for us to repeat. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Expanding the article==
As you can see, I've begun expanding it today, and will be done by tomorrow. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:02, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Very nice. But why does it only mention Gypsies, Jehovas witness and homosexuals? More Slavs were victims than all these groups combined.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::It isn't done yet, but it should list the groups of people who were targeted for slavery as well as those targeted for extermination. But as a rule, ''holocaust'' as a term should be restricted to the persecution of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::No argument there.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad my suggested article improvement drive is working! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Yer welcome! Now for the rest of the articles on the list... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dawidowicz==
Here is the citation moved from the Adolf Hilter page. This link is from the [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] and reads,
{{Cquote|Postwar historians of the Holocaust, especially those asserting the exclusivist view that the Holocaust was a historical experience unique to the Jewish people, have taken a similar position. Thus [[Lucy S. Dawidowicz]], a leading exclusivist, has dismissed as '''not worthy of mention''' the '''"prostitutes, homosexuals, perverts, and common criminals"''' incarcerated by the Nazi.2 }}

with the footnote

{{Cquote|Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians (Cambridge, MA, 1981), p. 8. Ironically, this stance echoes the alibi voiced in crypto-Nazi writings of the postwar period that the inmates of the concentration camps were mainly black marketeers and other criminals who later posed as innocent victims of the regime; for example, Brigitte Pohl, Fastnacht der Damonen: Erlebnisse einer Wienerin (Leoni am Stamberger See, 1963), p. 45 [published by the Druffel-Verlag]. Pohl is a frequent contributor to the farright monthly Nation Europa, published in Coburg. }}

http://web.archive.org/web/20010121143900/http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual7/chap12.html

Dawidowicz is the Author of ''A Holocaust Reader'', and ''The War Against the Jews'', two definitive works we certainly will be citing in this article. Dawidowicz's credentials are impecable. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Use that as a reference, and add material as appropriate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

So far I have touched the beginnings of World War II. As it stands, what I have put in is merely an article in general terms; detail can be added as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:41, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
The structure is pretty basic, but ready for new material. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bombing the railroad ==

Many historians have debated the question of why the Allies did not attempt to stop the operations at Auschwitz by bombing the railroad into the camp - or whether they could or should have. Is that relevant to this article? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it is. Perhaps a new subsection called "Allied responses" or something similar, in which it is described what the Allies did, could have done, or didn't do during the war. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Your edit of the word Nurnberg is fine, however it's spelled. What I wanted to do is to get as close as possible to the German spelling, but the mark above the letter "U" in the word is a bit of a trouble to insert. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Found the German version of the word, with the inflection. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==This is an excellent article==

This is a very well done and researched article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone has posted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 12:01, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I see once again someone has pasted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 21:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand; I don't see a photograph there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

It's 12:35 PM on August 31, 2007. Take a look again at the statistics box. It's partially blocked by a photograph.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 12:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Two changes I would like to offer==
I'd like to second the comment by DanH on the quality of this article. Well done, editors!

That said, I'd like to make two comments:

1) Purpose of article
The article begins with "The Holocaust is a word...". This suggests that the article is one discussing the word itself, rather than the event related to the victims of Nazi Germany, which is actually the main thing being discussed.

A decision seems necessary on whether the article discusses the word (under which the definition and etymology is important) or the historical event. I think the more likely reason people visit this page is the later.

I believe the etymology should be moved to its own section farther down in the article. I also think there should be a deliberate reference to the [[Genocide]] article, rather than just having a category.

2) Displaced gravity of the article
The end of the definition contains the following language: "when Jews were ... and ultimately targeted for extermination". My problem is only with the use of the word "targeted", which suggests that extermination may not have actually occurred. The actual subject should be front and center, and not left as an item to be discussed in the body of the article.

[[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:43, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Holocaust

2007-12-24T18:51:49Z

CillaHunt: /* Resistance */ Gun control

[[Image:Warsaw ghetto.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Jewish families are forced from the Warsaw Ghetto in the aftermath of its destruction by the S.S. in 1943. Their final destination was the killing center at Treblinka.]]
The '''Holocaust''' was the period during 1933-1945 in [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] when [[Jews]] were barred from social life and work, imprisoned en masse, and exterminated under the policy of ''die Endlösung'' (the '''Final Solution''').

==Origins==
After years of struggling to push their ideology into the masses through browbeatings and violence, the Nazi Party in Germany came to power in 1933, with [[Adolf Hitler]] as Chancellor, his ideology firmly entrenched within the party, and in the pages of his ''Mein Kampf'', a semi-biographical work containing his rambling political philosophy. In its pages Hitler expounded on the idea that the Aryan race, of which he was a part, was the so-called “master race”, and had a moral right and duty to subjugate the world; in the way stood the ''untermenschen'' (“sub-humans”), which, according to the Nazis, were meant to serve the master race as slaves. At the very bottom were the Jews, who were depicted as an evil race bent on world domination.

Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933 to lead a coalition government at the request of [[President]] [[Paul von Hindenburg]], and almost immediately he made moves to consolidate power to himself and the Nazi Party, as well as restrict or eliminate political opposition. Jewish businesses began feeling the effects of a boycott as soon as it began on April 1, followed by the dismissal of Jewish civil service workers, judges, and university professors a week later. On May 10, some ten days after laws were enacted which prevented Jewish children from attending public schools except by quota, thousands of university students and professors stormed bookstores and libraries to remove books they deemed “un-Germanic” and opposed to Nazi teachings, throwing them into public bonfires. The [[Nürnberg Laws]] were enacted in 1935, which revoked German citizenship from Jews as well as declaring the marriage between a Jew and a [[German]] illegal. By 1938, the political and economic foundations of German Jewry were completely decimated.

==Crystal Night==
On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in [[Paris]] and upset over his family’s forced deportation to [[Poland]], shot the third secretary (Ernst vom Rath) to the German ambassador in [[France]], who died two days later. His assassination touched off a wave of riots on November 9, seemingly at the behest of the Nazi minister of propaganda, [[Joseph Goebbels]], but this was expanded and organized better with the issuing of orders by the head of the S.S., [[Reinhard Heydrich]], later that evening, who specified that S.S. and S.A. units in various cities would march out with sledgehammers against Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues - but in civilian clothes only (to symbolize the “righteous” anger of the German people). Business could not be looted, as the property inside was deemed property of the state; Jewish property near German shops and homes could not be burned, but smashed; and many Jewish males, particularly the wealthy, were subject to arrest. Over 35,000 men were arrested that night, and according to figures released by Heydrich the total number of arrests exceeded 100,000; 815 Jewish businesses were destroyed, 191 Synagogues were destroyed or demolished, and over 2,000 were dead. By the end of the week local jails as well as the new [[Buchenwald]] and [[Dacau]] concentration camps were quickly filled. To further add insult to injury, the Jews were declared responsible for the damages done to their property and ordered to pay the staggering sum of one billion Reichmarks.

The sidewalks were littered with shards of the expensive storefront glass that was preferred for shops in Germany, which was called ''Kristallglas'' for its high-quality. The amount of glass left behind gave the incident its name: ''Kristallnacht'' (“Crystal Night”), or the Night of Broken Glass.

==Non-Jewish victims==
Jews were not the only victims of Nazi persecution. <ref> It is estimated that around 6 million Jews were killed during the Final Solution, along with as many as another 6 million non-Jews. [http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/heinrich-himmler.shtml] </ref>
Members of unions, members of the Social Democratic Party, and political dissidents were also sent to the camps; indeed they were among the first ones incarcerated immediately following Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Some 20,000 [[Jehovah’s Witnesses]] also were rounded up and sent to the camps, primarily because of refusal to register for the draft, swear allegiance to the state, or give the “Heil Hitler” greeting. [[Homosexual]]s were arrested, where they were forced to wear a pink triangle on their prison garments. [[Gypsies]] as well were rounded up and imprisoned, and like the Jews, were deliberately marked for killing.

The mentally retarded, the disabled, and the insane were selected for the T-4 Program, which was created in 1939. Dubbed “useless eaters” by S.S. general Ernst Kaltenbrunner, these people were murdered as part of a “euthanasia” campaign, usually by placing them in a special room where a vehicle’s engine provided the carbon monoxide gas that flowed in through a hose in a wall.

Following the outbreak of World War II in [[Poland]], the Nazis killed Polish intellegensia in territories under their control, politicians, priests, and anyone else deemed part of a Polish leadership; the remainder were deemed slaves to serve their new masters; many were forced to perform hard labor, while many of the children who happened to look Aryan were kidnapped and raised as Germans in German households.

==World War II==
[[Image:Goeth.jpg|right|150px|right|thumb|Amon Goeth, commandant of the Plazow concentration camp near Krakow, Poland. A sadistic man, his recreation was to target and kill individual Jews in the camp with a hunting rifle from the balcony of his villa.]]
When World War II began in the fall of 1939, Jews in Germany were completely marginalized. They could not own property, go to a park, associate with Germans, enter a library or museum, work in any professional field or engage in business, nor could their children attend public schools. Public transportation would be forbidden by 1941, and the wearing of the yellow Star of David badge on their clothing was mandatory. They were also, prior to September 1, forced to migrate from countries and territories which had come under Hitler’s wing (the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland), with many being deported to Poland. By September 21, Poland was now the “General Government” protectorate under former lawyer [[Hans Frank]], and on that day Heydrich ordered the establishment of ''Judenrates'' (Jewish councils) which comprised 24 men - political leaders and rabbis – and whose personal responsibility was to carry out, to the letter, all German orders. This would include supplying people for work details, usually mundane things like digging ditches to amuse their Nazi overlords. Later, they were made to be responsible for supplying thousands of people a day for the “work” camps of [[Treblinka]], [[Sobibor]], [[Belzec]], and new one under construction near the town of Oswiecim, which the Germans called [[Auschwitz]].

Thousands, nearly thirty percent of the total population of Warsaw, were crammed into just over 2 percent of the city’s total land area, a density of 200,000 people per square mile. Naturally disease and malnutrition would take its toll, but for the German overlords this was a minor inconvenience. The ghetto was a temporary place to hold all of Europe’s Jews until a final solution was determined, and when the Nazis invaded their former ally, the Soviet Union, in June 1941, the killing began in earnest.

====The Einsatzgruppen====
[[Image:Babi Yar.jpg|right|150px|left|thumb|1943 German photo of Soviet POWs forced to dig up the thousands of Jews killed at Babi Yar two years before; the Nazis destroyed the evidence by burning the bodies.]]
Alongside the German Army were special mobile units whose job it was to locate and kill Jews, Gypsies, Soviets commissars, and others deemed unfit in the areas controlled by the army. These ''Einsatzgruppen'' (“special units”) were also aided by local populations who felt the Germans had relieved them of [[Soviet]] occupation as well as sharing a hatred for Jews and other minorities. Making no difference between young or old, male or female, the Einsatzgruppen killed 70,000 Jews at Ponary, near Vilnius, [[Lithuania]]; 33,771 Jews were machine-gunned in a ravine known as Babi Yar near [[Kiev]], [[Ukraine]], between [[September]] 28-29, 1941 [http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm]; 9,000 Jews were killed at the Ninth Fort at Kaunas, Lithuania, on October 28, of which half of the dead were children. On November 30 in the Rumbula Forest outside of Riga, Latvia, between 25,000-28,000 were killed.

The killings were done in first and second waves, with the bodies buried in mass graves. When the Soviets threatened and carried out counter-offensives to reclaim lost territory, special units made up of concentration camp inmates (''sonderkomandos'') would return to the sites, dig up the bodies, and burn them in mass pyres, destroying the evidence of their crimes. The number of individual persons killed by the Einsatzgruppen has been estimated at a bare minimum of one million.

==Endlösung==
[[Image:Heydrich.jpg|right|150px|thumb|''Obersturbanfuhrer'' Reinhard Heydrich, the man who convened the Wannsee Conference with the intention of determining a "final solution to the Jewish question".]]
:''To Gruppenführer Heydrich:''
:''Supplementing the task assigned to you by the decree of January 24, 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I hereby charge you to carry out preparations as regards organizational, financial, and material matters for a total solution (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in all the territories of Europe under German occupation.''
:''Where the competency of other central organizations touches on this matter, these organizations are to collaborate.''
:''I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish question.'' (Order from Hermann Göring to Reinhard Heydrich, July 31, 1941)

====Wannsee Conference====
On January 20, 1942 at a lakeside villa near Berlin named Wannsee a conference was convened by Heydrich to implement methods and ideas for a "final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). At the conference were fifteen men, among them Heydrich’s head of Jewish affairs, [[Adolf Eichmann]], who would be instrumental in providing the logistical plans for removing the Jews to the camps. The men present were highly educated, and represented government agencies, such as the Gestapo, the Race and Resettlement Office, the S.S., as well as a representative from the General Government in Poland. As Heydrich himself explained near the beginning of the conference, ideas were bartered about as to relocating Jews:

:''“Another possible solution of the [Jewish] problem has now taken the place of emigration—i.e., evacuation of the Jews to the east…Such activities are, however, to be considered as provisional actions, but practical experience is already being collected which is of greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish problem.”''

The minutes of the meeting were kept, but had been edited by Heydrich. The language it contains euphemisms in place of what was really said. ''Evacuation of Jews to the east'' and ''resettlement'' meant relocation to the concentration and extermination camps in Poland; ''special handling'' regarded the killing of Jews, either through slave labor in which the Jew was worked to death, or being killed immediately on arrival. The ''final solution'' was put into practice within a few months of the conference, as the bullets of the machine guns and the exhaust of carbon monoxide were replaced by the more efficient killing methods installed in the first gas chambers.

====The killing centers====
[[Image:Hgdye56.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Selektion'' of Hungarian Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers.]]
In the early years of Nazi Germany concentration camps were built with the expressed purpose of housing political prisoners; this was quickly expanded to Jews and other people the Nazis considered undesirable. But by 1942 new camps were built in eastern Poland as killing centers; the victims, once targeted by the Einsatzgruppen coming to them, had been rounded up by units of the Army and Waffen S.S., and forced to travel to their own destruction. The victims were packed tightly into cattle cars - so tight in fact that many would die standing up – and transported by rail to the new extermination camps of Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, [[Majdanek]], and Belzec. The camps were essentially factories which specialized in death, making the process from arrival to counting to shower to disposal coldly efficient.

As they arrived the victims were divided in two: those fit for work, usually young to middle aged men, or possessed a special skill needed in the camp, and the remainder sent for delousing in the showers. Deceived to the end, the “showers” was actually a sealed room in which a chemical tablet known as “[[Zyklon B]]” was dropped through a hole in the ceiling. The cyanide-based vapors would kill the entire room within minutes; within thirty, the room was emptied by the ''sonderkomandos'', cleaned, and ready for another group of victims.

Of the killing centers, the one at Osweicim, Poland - Auschwitz - was perhaps the most notorious. Auschwitz was three camps: a prisoner-of-war camp (Auschwitz I), a slave-labour camp (Auschwitz III–Buna-Monowitz) and the extermination camp (Auschwitz II–Birkenau). The arrivals would disembark the trains at Auschwitz II, where the old, handicapped, infirm, sick, and pregnant women would face a German doctor (among them the notorious [[Joseph Mengele]]) in the ''selektion'', where a flick of a thumb could mean the difference between slave labor in the nearby factory run by I.G. Farben (which took advantage of the forced labor by investing some 700 million Reichsmarks in the project), or to their immediate deaths. Those selected for labor would be worked to death by a combination of hard labor and inadequate food and medical care; a second ''selektion'' of their numbers, if they had survived, would mean a trip to the gas chambers.

The number of Jews put to death were staggering. Beginning in the summer of 1942 a bare minimum of 960,000 were believed killed at Auschwitz during its three years in operation. At Treblinka, between 750,000-900,000 Jews were killed within 17 months, considering the staff and guards there numbered 120. 600,000 Jews died at Belzac within 10 months by a staff numbering 104. In the eighteen months of its operation, Sobibor killed 250,000.

==Clandestine aid==
In territory occupied by the Germans the situation was bleak for Jews. Their allies were few and resources were meager. Despite this, many put their lives on the line to provide aid and comfort, as well as putting them in hiding or through a network of underground units to get them to safety. In Poland it was punishable by death to aid Jews, yet a “council for the aid of Jews” known as the Zegota rescued about 5,000 men, women, and children, providing hiding places and forged identity papers. A similar number was hidden by French Huguenots in the little town of Le Chamblon-sur-Lignon. Although criticized by many for his silence about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, Pope [[Pius XII]] hid several hundred inside the Vatican, away from Mussolini and German occupiers.

Swedish diplomat [[Raoul Wallenburg]], in an attempt to save the last remaining Jews in Hungary, arrived in Budapest on July 9, 1944, and working with neutral diplomats and the Vatican, secured the release of several thousand; his efforts at the rescue of Jews would total well over 100,000 by war’s end. A Nazi businessman who took advantage of the slave labor conditions to make a personal profit, [[Oskar Schindler]], would use that profit to bribe camp guards and Nazi officials at the Plazow camp to ensure that the workers he had grown to love and admire would survive the end of the war; among the individuals he played cat and mouse with for their lives was the camp's commandant, Amon Goeth, a sadistic man who shot Jews for target practice from his villa and tortured a captured escapee by shooting the prisoners around him. These men and women, who hid Jews out of a sense of common humanity, would not be forgotten: the state of Israel would recognize them with honorary citizenship several years later.

==Resistance==
Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves because the Nazis first disarmed their victims through use of [[gun control]] they were left defenseless.
"Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=357551&oldid=357545]. Further, the Nazis took great care to prevent their victims from knowing their true plans right up to the moment of their deaths; at Babi Yar many had believed they were being transported to a “family work camp” right up to the point of standing before their own mass grave. There was also the fear of reprisals against large numbers of Jews within the ghettos, which also prevented resistance. But word of the unbelievable atrocities of the death camps filtered into places like Warsaw, and as the trains were leaving packed with Jews many saw that resistance was preferable to the death that awaited them.

Nine months after the Warsaw deportations had commenced, and after confirmation that their destination was the Treblinka extermination camp, 24-year-old [[Mordecai Anielewicz]] and his Jewish Resistance began the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising on April 19, 1943, which lasted just over a month. Jews would fight alongside partisans elsewhere in France, the Balkans, and Soviet Russia during the last three years of the war. Uprisings also occurred in two of the death camps, Treblinka and Sobibor; the latter was closed as a result and the site razed to hide the evidence.

But the killing continued unabated, even to the last week of the war. As territory was regained by Soviet forces, the death camps were evacuated of survivors and destroyed as much as possible in a futile attempt to hide the evidence. The survivors were moved west into Germany, usually in hellish death marches, and interned in concentration camps where death still awaited them; such killing by the S.S. took priority over military matters at times.

==Aftermath==
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="450" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: yellow no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish Death Statistics during the Holocaust
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Country
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Prior Jewish Population
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number Killed
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Percentage of Total
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number of Survivors
|-
|'''Poland'''
|3,300,000
|'''3,000,000'''
|91%
|300,000
|-
|'''Germany'''
|566,000
|'''200,000'''
|36%
|366,000
|-
|'''USSR'''
|3,020,000
|'''1,100,000'''
|36%
|1,920,000
|-
|'''Hungary'''
|800,000
|'''596,000'''
|74%
|204,000
|-
|'''Lithuania'''
|168,000
|'''143,000'''
|85%
|25,000
|-
|'''Estonia'''
|4,500
|'''2,000'''
|44%
|2,500
|-
|'''Latvia'''
|95,000
|'''80,000'''
|84%
|15,000
|-
|'''France'''
|350,000
|'''77,320'''
|22%
|272,680
|-
|'''Austria'''
|185,000
|'''65,000'''
|35%
|120,000
|-
|'''Netherlands'''
|140,000
|'''100,000'''
|71%
|40,000
|-
|'''Belgium'''
|65,700
|'''28,900'''
|45%
|36,800
|-
|'''Romania'''
|342,000
|'''287,000'''
|84%
|55,000
|-
|'''Bohemia Moravia'''
|118,310
|'''71,150'''
|60%
|47,160
|-
|'''Greece'''
|77,380
|'''67,000'''
|87%
|10,380
|-
|'''Czechoslovakia'''
|88,950
|'''71,000'''
|80%
|17,950
|-
|'''Yugoslavia'''
|78,000
|'''63,300'''
|81%
|14,700
|-
|'''Italy'''
|44,500
|'''7,680'''
|17%
|36,820
|-
|'''Bulgaria'''
|50,000
|'''0'''
|0%
|50,000
|-
|'''Denmark'''
|7,800
|'''60'''
|.8%
|7,740
|-
|'''Finland'''
|2,000
|'''7'''
|.03%
|1,993
|-
|'''Norway'''
|1,700
|'''762'''
|45%
|938
|-
|'''TOTAL'''
|'''9,508,340'''
|'''5,962,129'''
|'''63%'''
|'''3,546,211'''
|
|}
[[Image:Ike at Ordruf.jpg|left|150px|thumb|General Dwight D. Eisenhower saw for himself the carnage wrought by the Nazis when he toured the Ordruf concentration camp on April 12, 1945. These prisoners were executed prior to the camp's liberation.]]
More than nine million people were discovered by the [[Allies]] to have been displaced throughout the European Theater of the war; of these, six million were returned to their native lands. One million refused, citing either a fear of communist persecution or a fear of being discovered to have collaborated with the enemy. The remainder, more than three and a half million Jews, had nothing. For these survivors, life after the war meant searching for loved ones, as well as recovering from the severe effects of malnutrition and disease at the hands of the Nazis.

As to the future of finding homes for the surviving Jews, that was solved in part by both covert and well-publicized efforts to pressure [[Great Britain]] into relinquishing control of [[Palestine]] for the purpose of a Jewish homeland, as well as the relaxing of American immigration laws in 1948 which allowed a large influx of Jewish refugees. So shocking was the Holocaust to the Jewish mindset that it caused a determination of survivors to speed the creation of the State of [[Israel]] in May, 1948, vowing that a repeat of the Holocaust, as well as previous pogroms against the Jews in the past, would not happen again. Since 1948, Israel has fought in four major wars against their neighbors bent on eradicating it, and each time Israel has emerged victorious.

The Allies were just as shocked over the conditions which prevailed at the Nazi death camps, and set up military tribunals as a result. The most famous was the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal|Nürnberg Trials]], taking place 1945-1946 near the site of the Nazi mass rallies. For the first time in history, an international tribunal would try the 22 major living Nazis for crimes against humanity; all but one would be found guilty, and more than half would suffer death by hanging.

Many Nazis would flee justice, seeking solace in many counties which sympathized with them. [[Adolf Eichmann]], a chief architect of the Holocaust, was captured while hiding in Argentina under an assumed name, brought to Israel, and put on trial in 1961. He was found guilty, and suffered the first and only death penalty carried out Israel’s history. Other Nazis would eventually be brought to trial: [[Klaus Barbie]], the “Butcher of Lyon”, was tried in France in 1987, as well as [[Maurice Papon]] a decade later for collaborating with the Nazis. These trials brought to new generations an awareness of the Holocaust.

==Etymology==
The word '''Holocaust''' comes from the Greek word ''holokaustos'' (''holos'': complete, and ''kaustos'': a sacrificial or burnt offering to a god); the [[Hebrew]] word ''hurban'' (destruction) was also used, and and survivors have used both to refer to what seemed to be the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, specifically in the crematoria of the [[concentration camps|extermination camps]] built for that purpose. In Hebrew, the Holocaust is known by the word "''Shoah''."

==Books and film==
*''[[Schindler's List]]''

==See also==
*[[Holocaust Memorial Day]]
*[[Kindertransport]]

==References==
*Shirer, William L. ''The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'', Simon and Schuster, New York (1960).
*Yahil, Leni. ''The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry'', Schocken Publishing House, Ltd, Tel Aviv, Israel (1987). English edition by Oxford University Press, New York (1990).
*[http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm ''Babi Yar'', poem by Yevgeni Yevtushenko]

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
:[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ Holocaust Encyclopedia]
:[http://www.ushmm.org/ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]
:[http://www.hmh.org/ Houston Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/ Florida Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.va-holocaust.com/ Virginia Holocaust Museum]
:[http://holocausteducationcenter.org/ Holocaust Awareness Museum & Educational Center of Philadelphia; America's First Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Nuremberg/Nuremberg.html#search Searchable list of 2300 victims from Nuremberg]
:[http://www.holocaustcentre.net/ Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Newark, England]
:[http://www.mhmc.ca/ Montreal Holocaust Memorial Center Museum]
:[http://www.holocaust-mahnmal.de/en German Government's Memorial To Jews Murdered During Holocaust]
:[http://www.amcha.org/ AMCHA: Israeli Association of Holocaust Survivors]

[[category:European History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Talk:Gun control

2007-12-24T18:42:22Z

CillaHunt: /* Gun Control and Genocide */ Christmas spirit?

{{Protected|TK}}

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Counter question''': How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the [[Debate topics]]. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Read [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/16/where-did-the-shooter-get-his-guns/ this] information via Hot Air. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation. ==

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference.
-Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

== Somewhere else in the world ==

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :
:"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"
Any comment? [[User:Emptiness|Emptiness]] 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in.
Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Duplicate sentence revert. ==

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, ''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.'' appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was '''reverted'''. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should '''not''' be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

''Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.''

''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.''

Have at me.

''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT) '''
----
: I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
:
:''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT) '''

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a [[deceit]]" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page ==

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on [[9/11]], thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a [[public school]], they would not be easy prey for people like the [[Virginia Tech killer]]. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html this page] which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:: I'll build up the [[John Lott]] entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:::I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.

:::I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.

:::The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.

:::While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.

:::Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.

:::The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.

:::However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
::::Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the [[John Lott]] page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:25, 16 December 2007

:There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the [[John Lott]] that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that [[gun control]] represents a [[materialistic]] style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. [[Gun control]] depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of [[gun control]] also advocate [[materialism]] in other contexts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:: Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and [[materialism]]. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: I think many [[gun control]] supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily [[materialistic]] style of reasoning, but there are many [[materialists]] out there who are attracted to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
::My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
::But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
::There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
::: Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters ''general'' crime, not specifically ''gun crime''. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
: But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
: What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:: Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of [[gun control]] on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::: A couple of corrections and an agreement:
:::* I didn't say that guns ''cause'' crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
:::* I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious [[public school]] system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
:::::But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: The [[U.S.]] has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the [[U.S.]] is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-[[homeschooling]] regulations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, very interesting.
:::::::I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
:::::::Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
:::::::As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
:::::::What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::
:::: An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -

::::The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.

::::Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.

::::it has an enormous drug problem

::::Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.

::::it has anti-religious [[public school]] system

::::Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.

::::it has widespread gambling and pornography

::::The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.

::::it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.

::::Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::: That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which ''should'' mean that is has ''less'' crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gun[http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm gun safety facts]. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

{{unsigned|Afee}}
:Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --[[User:LoveJesus1|LoveJesus1]] 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: "LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know [[materialists]] have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.

: Don't think we're fooled by [[liberal]]s pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." [[Liberals]] care more about increasing dependency on government, as in [[Cuba]], which has the strictest [[gun control]] in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and [[liberals]] know that but rarely admit to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
::There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Change of graph and wording ==

The graph that I supplied was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The graph that Andy substituted is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:
* It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
* The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
* The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:{{QuoteBox|It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.}} In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".
Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed ''does'' support that (even if it doesn't ''prove'' it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

== ...protected? ==

Aw, man. This has been protected since ''June''? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Thank you kindly! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

It is stated here that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=357540&oldid=357525 "the facts are provided"] to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

House, MD

2007-12-18T00:33:44Z

CillaHunt: Link to medicine

'''House MD''' is a television series on the [[Fox Network]] that runs for an hour each week. It is also known as '''House''', without the MD. The main character, House (picked because of its similarity to the last name of [[Sherlock Holmes]]) is a grumpy, antagonistic [[atheist]] [[doctor]] with few redeeming social graces. The show mixes [[quack]] [[medicine|medical]] issues with [[Moral relativity|moral]] and personal dilemmas and has become quite popular, in part because it often comes on after the scandal ridden talent show [[American Idol]], but it has since done well on its own even when American Idol is not on. Despite Dr House's moral and [[Christianity|religious]] failings he is presented as a [[liberal]] 'hero' who [[deceit]]fully gets high on pain killers. Furthermore, due to sometimes graphic scenes and [[Fornication|adult themes]], the show is not recommended for [[Christian]] children under 16.

Cast:

Dr. Gregory House: [[Hugh Laurie]]

Dr. Allison Cameron: Jennifer Morrison

Dr. Robert Chase: Jesse Spencer

Dr. Eric Foreman: Omar Epps

Dr. James Wilson: Robert Sean Leonard

Dr. Lisa Cuddy: Lisa Edelstein

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.tv.com/house/show/22374/cast.html House Cast and Crew]
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/ IMDB website]

[[Category:Television]]

Judas Iscariot

2007-12-14T20:19:53Z

CillaHunt: link

[[Image:Judas iscariot s.jpg|left]]
'''Judas Iscariot''' the son of Simon Iscariot and Cyborea (John 6:71 and 13:26). According to the [[Bible]] Judas Iscariot was one of the disciples of [[Jesus Christ]]. Judas was the [[Liberal]] disciple that betrayed Jesus for 30 "pieces of silver" (most likely Tyrian shekels) to soldiers of the High Priest [[Caiphas]], who then turned Jesus over to [[Pontius Pilate|Pontius Pilate's]] soldiers.

The ''[[Gospel of Matthew]]'' says that after Jesus' arrest by the [[Rome|Roman]] authorities (but before his execution), Judas, overtaken by guilt returned the money to the priests that gave it to him and committed [[suicide]] by hanging himself.

According to John 13:29, Judas may have kept the money for Jesus and the Twelve Disciples.

The ''[[Acts (of the Apostles)|Acts of the Apostles]]'' states however that Judas used the money to buy a field but apparently fell down and burst apart. The field was then named Akeldama or the Field of Blood. ''Acts 1'' goes on to describe how his place among the apostles was filled by [[Matthias the Apostle|Matthias]].

A translation of a [[Gnostic]] document known as The [[Gospel of Judas]] has recently been made public, giving rise to much religious and historical discussion, but appears to be dated much later than the Judas' death.

== See also ==

*[[The Twelve Apostles]]
*[[Garden of Gethsemane]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nndb.com/people/843/000101540/ Judas Iscariot]

[[category:12 Disciples]]

User talk:OurMike

2007-12-12T19:17:43Z

CillaHunt: /* No!!! */

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:37, 13 October 2007 (EDT)}}

== No!!! ==

What happened? I thought you'd come to your senses and given up. You really should walk away from this tiny site. It's better for your health.

<blockquote>"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."</blockquote>

[[User:TonyJ|TonyJ]] 14:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Great freedom of information post on the Dawkins page. It was game set and match before your post now, well - what comes after game set and match? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Someone tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins&curid=49668&diff=351028&oldid=351027 preemt that]. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 14:17, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Genocide

2007-12-12T18:31:59Z

CillaHunt: Abortion falls under ''any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy''.

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. (See Samantha Power, ''A Problem From Hell.'')

==20th century genocides==

20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The Soviet genocide of the Ukrainians ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The Nazi [[Holocaust]]
*1970s-present: The [[abortion]] [[Holocaust]] has killed countless millions.<ref>[http://www.survivors.la/ Survivors]</ref>
*1975 - 1978: The Killing Fields in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]<ref>http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/</ref>

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==

In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide. Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict." ''{{fact}}

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Genocide

2007-12-12T18:17:16Z

CillaHunt: reverting Liberal bias.

Genocide

2007-12-12T11:46:09Z

CillaHunt: /* 20th century genocides */ another

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. (See Samantha Power, ''A Problem From Hell.'')

==20th century genocides==

20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The Soviet genocide of the Ukrainians ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The Nazi [[Holocaust]]
*1970s-present: The [[abortion]] [[Holocaust]] has killed countless millions.<ref>[http://www.survivors.la/ Survivors]</ref>
*1975 - 1978: The Killing Fields in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]<ref>http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/</ref>

Communism killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==

In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide. Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict." ''

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

==Rerferences==
<references/>

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Scotland

2007-12-10T16:05:08Z

CillaHunt: /* Sports and culture */ also see

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

== Introduction ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Position || Current Holder
|-
| [[British_monarchy|Monarch]] || Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|-
| [[UK_Prime_Ministers|Prime Minster]] || [[Gordon Brown]] MP
|-
| [[Secretary of State for Scotland|Secretary of State]] || [[Des Browne]] MP
|-
| [[First Minister of Scotland|First Minister]] || [[Alex Salmond]] MSP
|}

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (3000 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has four major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]] and [[Glasgow]]. [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]] were granted city status recently but are in fact smaller than some of the larger Scottish towns like Paisley and Perth.

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like monuments.

At the time of the [[Romans]] the tribes in what became Scotland were similar to those further south, and can be considered to be [[Celtic]] peoples. Those from the North-East were called ‘Picti’ (Picts) by Roman writers, which could mean ‘painted people' and refer to tattoos. The Romans never subdued these northern tribes, and after a brief period when the Antonine Wall between the Firths of Forth and Clyde was the Roman Empire’s northern frontier, they drew back and had [[Hadrian’s Wall]] as the frontier. They did try and influence the tribes between the two Walls, and when kingdoms like Strathclyde emerged in the early [[Dark Ages]], their rulers often bore Roman names or titles, the dynasties having been founded by Roman officials. The Scots themselves began arriving as settlers in the West of Scotland at this time (AD 400-500). They were from a part of the north of [[Ireland]] and spoke Old Irish, which changed to become Scottish [[Gaelic]], and eventually replaced Pictish. They sometimes warred with the Picts and [[Briton]]s and sometimes allied with them, but a unified kingdom under the Scottish king Kenneth Mac Alpin was established in AD 843, called ‘Alba’ (still the [[Gaelic]] name for Scotland). This kingdom took over Strathclyde in the early 11th century to form the basis of Mediaeval Scotland. [[Normans]] and their decscendents such as Robert the Bruce ('de Brus' was a Norman surname) became important nobles in Scotland.

==Union with England==

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.)The formation of the Irish Free State in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish, and formerly he was [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]].

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation, indeed obsession, is [[football (soccer)]]. Other diversions include [[rugby]], [[lawn bowls]], [[motorsports]], [[horseracing]], [[shinty]] (similar to hockey), [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the [[caber]] and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the [[thistle]]. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirt like garments worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]] and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

Also see [[:Category:Scottish Culture]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Homosexuality and Scotland

2007-12-10T16:03:22Z

CillaHunt: /* References */ cat.

== Scotland and Cultural Controversies ==
Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]] and it is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by:
* the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm MSPs abolish Section 28]</ref>
* the legalisation of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex unions]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm Same-sex couples embrace equality ]</ref>
* the [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 MSPs approve gay adoption]</ref>
* teaching homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006 Schools told to give pupils gay sex advice]</ref>
* [[affirmative action]] for homosexual soldiers and policemen<ref>[http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm Army marches in Gay Pride parade]</ref>
* forcing religious schools to employ [[Atheism|atheist]] teachers<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4787496.stm Atheist teacher wins job tribunal]</ref>
* protection for [[Child molesting|pedophiles]] <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm 'Make friends with a pedophile']</ref>
* The banning of anti-gay chants at sports events<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007 Anti-gay chants to be banned from terraces]</ref>.
==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:homosexuality]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

Culture of Scotland

2007-12-08T15:45:33Z

CillaHunt: Andy sees my point. See talk.

==Clothing==
The [[kilt]], a knee-length, pleated wrapped skirt worn by men, is the most widely-known distinctly Scottish item of clothing.

Trews are narrow, tight-fitting trousers, often in [[Tartan]], worn by Scotsmen when not [[kilt]]ed, and are part of the mess uniform for many [[Scottish]] [[regiments]].
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

==See also==

[[Homosexuality and Scotland ]]

Talk:Culture of Scotland

2007-12-08T15:44:03Z

CillaHunt: Andy sees my point.

Andy [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Censorship_of_conservative_facts|sees my point]] so the link should remain. or as he suggests the entire page on Culture of Scotland should probably be deleted. I can't delete the page but untill it is the link to Conservative facts shouls remain see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] number 9. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 10:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Culture of Scotland

2007-12-08T15:24:03Z

CillaHunt: A link from this article to an article about another aspect of Scottish culture is very relevant. Do not censor Conservative facts!

Culture of Scotland

2007-12-08T15:00:34Z

CillaHunt: /* Clothing */ Link to educational, clean, and concise entry.

Kilt

2007-12-08T14:58:04Z

CillaHunt: See also. Link to educational, clean, and concise entry.

{{merge|Culture of Scotland}}

A '''kilt''' is a skirt-like garment which, in past times, was worn by men in the 17th and 18th centuries in the Scottish Highlands. Since that time, it has come to be one of the traditional symbols of all of [[Scotland]], being worn by men in modern times as a celebration of their Scottish heritage. It is also worn by women and girls as part of the costume of [[bagpipes|pipers]] and [[Highland dancing|Highland dancers]].

The garment itself consists of a length of woolen fabric called [[tartan]] which is wrapped around the waist, fastened with buckles and straps, and hangs down to the knees. It is pleated around the sides and back and the fabric displays a plaid pattern which, in modern times, has come to be associated with a [[Scottish clan]].

Historically, the kilt had its origin in the [[Ireland|Irish]] costume of the 16th century which consisted of a ''leine'' (a type of long shirt) which was worn with a mantle or plaid, the latter being a length of fabric cast about the shoulders. Sometime in the late 16th century, the mantle began to be worn belted, with the portion hanging below the waist first being loosely gathered into rough pleats. The mantle, worn in this manner, has come to be referred to as the ''Great kilt'' or ''belted plaid''.

By early in the 18th century (approximately), the style developed of wearing only the lower portion of the belted plaid, again loosely gathered and belted about the waist. The resulting garment is now referred to as the ''little kilt''.

The modern form of the kilt fiinally began to emerge in the late 18th century with the Regimental kilts, especially that of the Black Watch. At that time, the pleats (actually, a loose gathering of the fabric) were stitched down to facilitate putting on and wearing the garment. The garment used at that time was box pleated. The knife pleats featured on the great majority of modern kilts were adopted only beginning in the mid-19th century.

==See also==

[[Homosexuality and Scotland]]

==Links==
*[http://www.kiltday.com/ It's Kilt Day!]
* [http://www.scottish-tartans-society.co.uk The Scottish Tartans Society]
* [http://albanach.org/kilt.html The Early History of the Kilt]
* [http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/scottish/18thckilt.html Reconstructing History]

==Further reading==

*Barbara Tewksbury and Elie Stuehmeyer, ''[[Art of Kiltmaking (book)|The Art of Kiltmaking]]'' (Celtic Dragon Press, Rome, NY, 2001 ISBN 0-9703751-0-7)
*J. Charles Thompson, ''So You're Going to Wear the Kilt'' (Heraldic Art Press, Arlington, VA, 1979 ISBN 0-86228-017-6)
* John Telfer Dunbar, ''History of Highland Dress'', ISBN 0-7134-1894-X.
* John Telfer Dunbar, ''Highland Costume''1977 ISBN 0-901824-74-7
* Matthew A. C. Newsome, ''Early Highland Dress''
* Hugh Trevor-Roper, "The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland." in ''The Invention of Tradition'' ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, ISBN 0-521-24645-8.
* Donald C. Stewart and J. Charles Thompson, ''Scotland's Forged Tartans'', Paul Harris Publishing, Edinburgh, 1980. ISBN 0-904505-67-7.

[[Category:Scottish Clothing and Accessories]]
[[Category:Clothing]]

User talk:FloPey

2007-12-07T02:07:02Z

CillaHunt: /* Unwelcome and Warning */ link

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)}}
Please keep in mind that this is a family-friendly site. Your main page post was borderline, in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Welcome and Clarification==

I'm glad to see you've taken such a liking to Conservapedia! And I apologize if it seemed, on the main talk page, that I was promoting liberal causes; of course I recognize that contraception protects against STDs and pregnancy with 100% efficiency! But you sometimes have to be careful on Conservapedia, wary of the vandals and liberal trolls who so often plague the site. Though Conservapedia sysops are, as a result, keen at spotting vandalism or unsubtle/mocking parody, sometimes these can be confused with genuine mistakes or just poorly thought-out posts. However, as long as you make positive contributions to the site (to the articles), I'm sure there'll be no problem at all. Once again, welcome! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:11, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Unwelcome and Warning==

You take too much upon yourself with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=51028&diff=347810&oldid=347808&rcid=376542 this]. Consider taking that back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:Seems Ed's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=51028&diff=347817&oldid=347810 done it for you]. That'll save you some considering. He missed this occurence [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive22#Liberal of same here];-) [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 21:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:FloPey

2007-12-07T02:04:56Z

CillaHunt: /* Unwelcome and Warning */ That'll save you some considering!

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)}}
Please keep in mind that this is a family-friendly site. Your main page post was borderline, in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Welcome and Clarification==

I'm glad to see you've taken such a liking to Conservapedia! And I apologize if it seemed, on the main talk page, that I was promoting liberal causes; of course I recognize that contraception protects against STDs and pregnancy with 100% efficiency! But you sometimes have to be careful on Conservapedia, wary of the vandals and liberal trolls who so often plague the site. Though Conservapedia sysops are, as a result, keen at spotting vandalism or unsubtle/mocking parody, sometimes these can be confused with genuine mistakes or just poorly thought-out posts. However, as long as you make positive contributions to the site (to the articles), I'm sure there'll be no problem at all. Once again, welcome! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:11, 6 December 2007 (EST)

==Unwelcome and Warning==

You take too much upon yourself with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=51028&diff=347810&oldid=347808&rcid=376542 this]. Consider taking that back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:Seems Ed's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=51028&diff=347817&oldid=347810 done it for you]. That'll save you some considering. He missed this occurence [[Talk:Main_Page/archive22#Liberal|of same here]];-) [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 21:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)